John Kerry...a fraud in Vietnam?

[clintl]

If we are going to bring back the Vietnam era in this campaign, with all of its bitterness and divisiveness that dwarf even the current divisions over Iraq, let's bring back free love, too. We deserve something good to go with the bad.

[Mountain]

Ah its good to be back at odds with you again. Oddly enough I got a Bravo from you in the socialized medicine thread on the issue of tort reform so obviously you must be as big an idiot as me.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I pretty fucking sick and tired of people denigrating the National Guard (or Air National Guard in this case).

Serving in the Air National Guard is honorable, although somehow young Dubya wasn't affected by the 1 1/2 year waiting list that others had to go through.

What another lucky break for Bush that he was assigned to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger, a plane already being phased out. In fact, the Air Force had ordered all overseas F-102 units shut down as of June 30, 1970 -- just 3 months after Bush finished his training. Since training is so airplane specific, Bush was guaranteed from the beginning to be safe from combat.

[druez]

Does any of this really matter? Kerry can't catch a football.

[SFL Cat]

^^^ There ya go.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Serving in the Air National Guard is honorable, although somehow young Dubya wasn't affected by the 1 1/2 year waiting list that others had to go through.

What another lucky break for Bush that he was assigned to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger, a plane already being phased out. In fact, the Air Force had ordered all overseas F-102 units shut down as of June 30, 1970 -- just 3 months after Bush finished his training. Since training is so airplane specific, Bush was guaranteed from the beginning to be safe from combat.

Kind of like getting "wounded" (somehow, nobody really knows why he got them) three times and going home after 3 months to call his squad a bunch of baby-killers while they are still out in Vietnam.

It's all a matter of perspective really.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by druez

Does any of this really matter? Kerry can't catch a football.

or eat a cheesesteak!!







Cheesesteak bites Kerry

PREZ HOPEFUL ASKS FOR SWISS CHEESE!

BY DON RUSSELL

[email protected]


THE presidential election is still 15 months away, the nation's attention is on Ben and Jen, and the biggest name in politics is Schwarzenegger.

But we may have just witnessed the unraveling of the Democratic front-runner's campaign for the White House right here in South Philadelphia, at 9th and Wharton.

Let it be recorded: At lunchtime on Aug. 11, 2003, under the familiar awning of Pat's King of Steaks, Sen. John Kerry attempted to eat a cheesesteak.

For presidential candidates, eating a cheesesteak in South Philly is a political rite of passage. Clinton did it, and so did Gore. John McCain gobbled one, with hot peppers.

But this is more than just shaking hands and kissing babies. For a pol, eating a cheesesteak is like running the gauntlet - past the surly counterman, through the variety of toppings, finishing it off without looking lame.

We want to see if you can survive. And if you can't manage a dripping steak, why should we have any confidence that you can handle a slippery character like Osama bin Laden?

Kerry, you may have heard, failed miserably.

He ordered a cheesesteak with Swiss cheese.

Now I suppose in some corners of the world, Swiss is a perfectly acceptable sandwich ingredient. Switzerland, maybe.

But in Philadelphia, ordering Swiss on a cheesesteak is like rooting for Dallas at an Eagles game. It isn't just politically incorrect; it could get you a poke in the nose.

I once witnessed a sandwich-maker reach halfway out a store window, grab a dude by the neck and threaten to kneecap him and his girlfriend just because the guy asked, "With what?"

Onions, you idiot!

Pat's Steak owner Frank Olivieri had the good grace not to throttle Kerry. But he did advise him that, here in Philly, we don't much like Swiss-eating campaign monkeys.

He got Cheez Whiz instead. The damage, though, was already done.

At first, reporters snickered. Then word filtered into the national press that Kerry looked like a doof. Yesterday, the Washington Post compared the debacle to the first President Bush's out-of-touch questions upon encountering a common supermarket scanner.

Dukakis in a tank.

Quayle's "potatoe" misspelling.

Nixon's five o'clock shadow.

And now this: Kerry's cheesesteak mistake.

I blame it on his handlers.

I mean, who was the dope on his advance team who told Kerry to order a cheesesteak hoagie? For cryin' out loud, the guy's a rookie; eating a cheesesteak hoagie, with its layers of lettuce and tomato, is like trying to hit a major league fastball.

Kerry asked the photographers to stop shooting pictures. Right. You see a train wreck coming, the last thing you do is put down your camera.

So the man who would be president of the people was photographed delicately gripping the sandwich with his fingertips like he's some kind of Boston blue blood playing the piccolo. You half expected him to ask for a silk napkin, Jeeves.

If Kerry had any sense, he'd have gone to our Gov. Rendell for some culinary advice. Here's a guy, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who got himself elected mayor of Philadelphia a decade ago almost solely on his ability to stuff a cheesesteak down his trap without ruining a necktie.

We in Philadelphia expect nothing less of our Commander in Chief.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Exactly. They have every right to criticize Kerry because they served in the war, just as Kerry has every right to criticze a war that he fought and was wounded in.

JW why don't you refute some of the points instead of some dismissive gesture. If you're smart enough to argue your point of view that is. Your response indicates you would be lucky if you earned a B+ in anything.

Yeah, sure. I found dismissive to be the more appropriate response in this instance to the stereotypical liberal criticism of Bush. We could go back and forth until the election and we are not going to change many minds here. So perhaps dismissal is more realistic than arguing the points. And, just to take one of your points, I see no point in arguing with someone who writes, "The democrats could have nominated the ferret from the Budweiser commercials and I would vote for him."

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Congress passes the budgets, not the president. We didn't even hear the words "balanced budget" until the Republicans took over Congress during the 94 elections, and even then, we NEVER saw an actual surplus in the budget. The surplus was PROJECTED. Of course, 9-11, new security considerations and the post 9-11 economic slowdown put the quash on that.

Actually, balancing a budget was made a major issue by Ross Perot, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, that lead to the increased revenues that eventually lead to the projected surplus passed without a single Republican vote.
As for your Reagan info, Dick Cheney said not too long ago that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And multiple times during the Reagan administration he vetoed proposed budgets and the budget suggestion he then proceeded to show congress was bigger than the one they had sent him originally. (This was largely because the estimates he used to guage revenues and etc. were insanely optimistic. Unrealistically so.) In addition to that, inflation played a huge role in the appearance of the tax revenues doubling under Reagan. Along with the fact he did raise taxes once. It would make sense that if the government is spending loads of money and cutting taxes the economy would grow in the short term. In the long term, we'll have to pay that off, unfortunately.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

we NEVER saw an actual surplus in the budget. The surplus was PROJECTED.

That is false. There was a budget surplus from about 1997 through the end of Clinton's presidency. In fact, EVERY year of the Clinton presidency, including the two years the Democrats controlloed Congress either the budget deficit was reduce, or after we reached a surplus, the surplus increased.

As for the Republicans - what a pack of hypocrites. In 1994, all they could talk about was a balanced budget amendment. That's a horrible idea, but nevertheless, Gingrich and company made it the centerpiece of Republican fiscal policy. But put a Republican in the White House, and deficits suddenly don't mean anything. The last three Republican presidents have been the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in US history.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by clintl

The last three Republican presidents have been the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in US history.

Not if you're in the upper 2%.